Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1230 (BOM)

Popat Khandu Pisal v. State of Maharashtra

2014-06-11

ANUJA PRABHUDESAI, P.V.HARDAS

body2014
JUDGMENT Anuja Prabhudesai, J. 1. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 982 of 2009 was the accused No. 1 while the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 966 of 2008 were accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in Sessions Case No. 635 of 2002. These appellants/accused have challenged the judgment dated 21st August, 2008 whereby the 2nd Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Bombay, at Sewree convicted and sentenced each of them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each in default, to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for one month in respect of offence under Section302 r/w. 149 and 120B of IPC and to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine Rs. 1000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for one month each for the offence under Section 364 r/w.149 and 120-B I.P.C. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is as under: "P.W.1. Ankush Pisal is a resident of Kaldhari. His son Ravindra (deceased) was working as a porter at Byculla Market, Mumbai. On 26th March, 2002 one Kalange telephonically informed P. W. 1 Ankush Pisal, that Ravindra was missing from Mumbai since 20th March, 2002. P.W.I Ankush Pisal came to Mumbai and made enquiries with his relatives. Since the whereabouts of Ravindra could not be known, PW-1 lodged a missing report on 27th March, 2002 at Byculla Police Station." 2. The accused Raosaheb and Madhukar (deceased A3) were the residents of Kaldhari and were living at Lower Parel, Mumbai. P.W.3 Bhanudas Pisal, a co-villager who had come to Mumbai learnt that Ravindra was having illicit relations with the wife of Raosaheb (A-2) and that Raosaheb had conspired with Popat (A-1), Sanjay (A-5) and Sandeep (A-4) to kill Ravindra. PW-3 passed on this information to PW-1 Ankush. P.W.3 Bhanudas Pisal informed P. W. 1 that the accused Raosahcb had paid Rs. 3000/- to the accused Sanjay Popat and Sandeep to kill Ravindra. He further told P. W. 1 that the accused had initially planned to call Ravindra at Dadar on 20.3.2002 under the pretext of joining them for drinks and then to kill him. The said plan did not succeed as Ravindra did not come to Dadar. Subsequently, as per the instructions of Raosaheb, accused Sanjay, Popat and Sandeep took Ravindra to Mankhurd. The said plan did not succeed as Ravindra did not come to Dadar. Subsequently, as per the instructions of Raosaheb, accused Sanjay, Popat and Sandeep took Ravindra to Mankhurd. P.W.3 further informed P.W.I that while Raosaheb and Madhukar (deceased A-3) were forcing him to accompany them to Mankhurd, a policeman on duty got suspicious and took them to Dadar Police Station. The said policeman took their personal search and recovered a knife and an iron rod from the possession of Raosaheb (A-2). The police released him but detained Raosaheb and Madhukar. P.W.3 further informed P. W. 1 that since the said date he had not seen Ravindra, Sandeep and his associates at Dadar and surrounding locality. 3. Based on the said information, P.W.1 lodged a complaint/FIR dated 1.4.2002 (Exh. 19) against the aforesaid appellants and Madhukar (deceased A-3) for kidnapping his son Ravindra in order to murder. Pursuant to the said complaint, P. W.8 P.S.I. Deepak Chavan registered C.R. No. 113 of 2002 under section 120(B), 364 r/w. 34 I.P.C. at the Byculla Police Station. The accused Popat was arrested on 1.4.2002. On the same day, while he was in custody, accused Popat expressed his willingness to show the place where the body of Ravindra as well as the stone used for causing death of Ravindra was thrown. The said statement was recorded by P. W.8 under panchanama drawn in the presence of P.W.2 Mr. Baban Bhagwan Pawar. The body of Ravindra as well as the stone which was used for causing death of Ravindra was recovered from the spot of the incident as per the disclosure statement made by the accused Popat. The said recovery panchanama is at Exh. 22. 4. The body was identified by P.W.I as that of his son Ravindra. The police attached the stone and other incriminating material from the scene of offence under the spot panchanama at Ex.35. The inquest panchanama at Ex.36 was drawn over the body of the deceased Ravindra. The Postmortem examination was conducted by P.W.7 Dr. Rajendra Anandmohan Sharma. He opined that the death of Ravindra was due to multiple fractures of facial bones. P. W.8 handed over the body to P. W. 1, and on the same date added Section 302 I.P.C. and registered ADR 35 of 2002 at Byculla Police Station. The Postmortem examination was conducted by P.W.7 Dr. Rajendra Anandmohan Sharma. He opined that the death of Ravindra was due to multiple fractures of facial bones. P. W.8 handed over the body to P. W. 1, and on the same date added Section 302 I.P.C. and registered ADR 35 of 2002 at Byculla Police Station. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses, including the sole eye witness P.W.4 Kavita Kakde, and upon completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the aforesaid appellants/accused and Madhukar(A-3) and Meena (A-6) for committing offences punishable under Section 302, 364 r/w. 149 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge (Exhibit 3) was framed and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The proceedings abated against accused No. 3 Madhukar, who expired during the pendency of the case. Upon considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial court acquitted accused No. 6 Meena and held the aforesaid appellants/accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 guilty of offence under Section 302, 364 r/w. 149 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as stated above. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused have filed these appeals. 6. We have heard Learned Counsel Shri Nitin Pradhan for the Appellants and Learned APP Mrs. Shinde for the state. We have perused the records and considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel Shri Pradhan and Learned APP for the State. 7. The prosecution, in support of its case has examined 11 witnesses. P.W.I is the father of the deceased Ravindra. He is a resident of Village Kaldhari, Taluka Purandar, District Pune. P.W.1 has deposed that his son Ravindra was working as Hamal at Byculla Market. Mumbai. P.W.1 has deposed that on 26.3.2002 one person by name Kalange informed him that his son Ravindra was missing from Mumbai since 20.3.2002. On receipt of the said information, P.W.I came to Mumbai and made enquiries with the relatives. He was unable to trace his son; hence, on 27.3.2002 he lodged a missing report at Byculla Police Station. 8. P.W. 1 has further stated that he knows accused Raosaheb Pisal (A-2). The accused Raosaheb is a resident of village Kaldhari and was living at Lower Parel, Mumbai. He was unable to trace his son; hence, on 27.3.2002 he lodged a missing report at Byculla Police Station. 8. P.W. 1 has further stated that he knows accused Raosaheb Pisal (A-2). The accused Raosaheb is a resident of village Kaldhari and was living at Lower Parel, Mumbai. Said Raosaheb had agricultural land at his native village at Kaldhari and his wife used to visit Kaldhari to look after the agricultural work. P.W.I has deposed that his son Ravindra used to visit the residence of Raosaheb Pisal. PW-3 Bhanudas Kalange had told him that Raosaheb Pisal (A-2) suspected that Ravindra was having illicit relation with his wife and had therefore given Rs. 3,000/- to Popat Pisal (A-1), Sandip Kate (A-4), and Sanjay Samge (A-5) to cause death of Ravindra. Said Raosaheb and the accused Popat, Sandip and Sanjay had planned to cause death of Ravindra on 20.3.2002 by enticing him to join them for drinks near the railway track at Dadar. The said plan did not succeed as Ravindra did not come to Dadar. Subsequently, Raosaheb told them to bring Ravindra to Mankhurd. P. W.3 further informed P.W.I that while Madhukar and Raosaheb were forcing him to accompany them to Mankhurd, two policemen took their search and recovered a knife and iron rod from their possession and therefore took them in police custody. P.W.3 further informed P.W.I that since then Ravindra was not seen in Dadar area. P.W.I has deposed that based on the information given by P.W.3, he went to the police station and lodged a complaint dated 1.4.2002 (Exh. 19) against Raosaheb Pisal, Madhukar Pisal, Sandeep Kate, Sanjay and Popat Pisal for kidnapping his son Ravindra. 9. P.W. 1 has deposed that Popat Pisal (A-l) was arrested by the police and that Popat (A-l) had volunteered to show the place of offence. P.W.I has stated that the said statement was made in presence of pancha witnesses and some of his relatives as well as the police officers. P.W.I had stated that he had accompanied the panchas, the police officers and the accused Popat Pisal to Khalapur, District Raigad. He has stated that Popat Pisal had led them to Ujaloni Village, Khalapur, District Raigad and after alighting from the vehicle, he took them towards a hill. P.W. 1 has deposed that Popat Pisal pointed out at a stone which was stated to have been used for committing the crime. He has stated that Popat Pisal had led them to Ujaloni Village, Khalapur, District Raigad and after alighting from the vehicle, he took them towards a hill. P.W. 1 has deposed that Popat Pisal pointed out at a stone which was stated to have been used for committing the crime. Popat Pisal thereafter pointed out at the body lying in the valley in supine position. The police retrieved the body, which was emanating foul smell. He identified the said dead body as that of Ravindra. The police Inspector thereafter conducted panchanama of the dead body as well as that of the place of incident. 10. P.W.2 Baban Pawar is the witness to the recovery panchanama and the scene of offence panchanama at Exh. 22 and 23. P.W.2 has deposed that on 1.4.2002 at about 1.45 p.m. he was called at Byculla Police Station. Another panch witness was also present at the police station. He has deposed that accused Popat had disclosed that he would show the place where the dead body of the deceased Ravindra was thrown. He has stated that thereafter he along with the police and the accused Popat proceeded to Khalapur police station. PSI Pawar of Khalapur Police station also accompanied them. The accused No. 1 Popat led them to a village. He got down from the van and took them towards a hilly terrain. After walking for about half an hour, the accused No. 1 showed them the place of the incident. They saw some bloodstains and one stone at the place of the incident. The said stone was stained with blood. The accused No. 1 thereafter took them to a distance of about 25-30 ft. from the said spot and showed them the body lying in the valley. The said body was retrieved from the valley. P.W.2 has deposed that P.W.I had identified the body as that of Ravindra. Me has stated that the head of Ravindra was completely crushed. The police conducted a detail panchanama at Exh. 22 and obtained his signature as well as the signature of accused No. 1. He has deposed that the police had also drawn another panchanama Exh. 23 under which the stone and blood stained earth came to be seized. 11. P.W.7 Dr. Rajendra Sharma had conducted post mortem over the body of the deceased. He has deposed that on 1.4.2002 he was called to village Khadai. He has deposed that the police had also drawn another panchanama Exh. 23 under which the stone and blood stained earth came to be seized. 11. P.W.7 Dr. Rajendra Sharma had conducted post mortem over the body of the deceased. He has deposed that on 1.4.2002 he was called to village Khadai. He has deposed that a body of a person by name Ravindra Pisal was found at the said spot. The said body was decomposed. P.W.7 has given the description of the clothes found on the body and has further stated that the colour of the skin was black, features were swollen, tongue swollen and foul smell was emanating from the body. He has deposed that on examination he found the following injuries:-- "(i) C.L.W. On face (4" x 4" x 1") (ii) C.L.W on left mandibulor region (2"x2"x1") (iii) Left forearm soft tissue eaten up by birds (12" x 3" x 3") (iv) Fracture of frontal bone (v) Fracture of nasal bone (vi) Fracture of maxilla (vii) Fracture of mandible.". P.W.7 has deposed that the said injuries were ante mortem. He has opined that the death of Ravindra was due to multiple fractures of facial bones. He has deposed that the said injuries could be caused by a severe impact by a big stone. He has deposed the fracture of the frontal bone alone was sufficient to cause death. P.W.7 had prepared the postmortem report at Exh. 32. In his cross-examination P.W.7 has stated that the face was totally damaged due to the injuries. He has further stated that mandible fractures of frontal bone, nasal bone, and maxila could be caused due to a fall from a height. 12. P.W.8 Deepak Rajaram Chavan was attached to Byculla Police Station as PSI. He has stated that on 1.4.2002 his senior officer had instructed him to conduct enquiry in the missing report dated 27.3.2002 of Ravindra Pisal, who was missing since 20.3.2002. He has deposed that on 1.4.2002 Ankush Pisal (P.W.I), the father of Ravindra Pisal, expressed suspicion that his son might have been kidnapped by Raosaheb Pisal, Madhukar Pisal, Popat Pisal, Sandeep Kate and Sanjay. He has stated that he had recorded the complaint (Exh. 19) lodged by P.W.I Ankush Pisal against the said accused persons and registered C.R. No. 113 of 2003 under Section 364-B, 120-B r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. 13. He has stated that he had recorded the complaint (Exh. 19) lodged by P.W.I Ankush Pisal against the said accused persons and registered C.R. No. 113 of 2003 under Section 364-B, 120-B r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. 13. P.W.8 has further deposed that the accused Popat Pisal was brought to the police station in connection with the said complaint. He was arrested in the said case and was taken into custody. He has stated that while he was in custody, accused Popat expressed his willingness to show the place of the offence as well as the place where the body of Ravindra was thrown. He had recorded the said disclosure statement under panchanama Exhibit 22 drawn in presence of panchas and had obtained the signature of the accused as well as of the panchas on the said panchanama. P.W.8 has deposed that thereafter the accused No. 1 led them to Khalapur, District Raigad. He sought assistance of P.S.I. Pawar from Vavoshi Police station, Khalapur. He has further stated that the accused took them to village Ujaloni. After alighting from the vehicle, the accused took them towards a hilly terrain and showed them the place of offence and one stone lying at the place of offence. The accused thereafter took them towards the end of the hill and showed the place from where the body was thrown. P.W.8 has deposed that the body was recovered from the place shown by the accused. P. W. I identified the said body as that of his son Ravindra. He has stated that the recovery panchanama at Exh. 22 was drawn in the presence of P.W.2. Inquest over the body was prepared by PSI Pawar. Spot Panchanama was drawn and the blood stained soil, control sample of Soil, and the stone were seized. He has deposed that he had recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant at the place of the incident. P.S.I. Pawar had called a doctor who had conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased. The body was thereafter handed over to P.W.I Ankush Pisal, father of the deceased. He then returned to the police station and added Section 302 I.P.C. and registered A.D.R. 35 of 2002 at Byculla Police Station. 14. P.S.I. Pawar had called a doctor who had conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased. The body was thereafter handed over to P.W.I Ankush Pisal, father of the deceased. He then returned to the police station and added Section 302 I.P.C. and registered A.D.R. 35 of 2002 at Byculla Police Station. 14. The sequence of events as brought on record through the evidence of the aforementioned witnesses clearly indicates that on 26.3.2002 P.W.I had learnt that his son Ravindra was missing from Mumbai since 20.3.2002. whereupon he had lodged a missing report. Upon enquiry, P. W. 1 learnt that his son Ravindra was having illicit relation with the wife of accused Raosaheb and that accused Raosaheb had conspired with the other accused to cause death of Ravindra. P.W.I therefore suspected involvement of Raosaheb and other accused. Hence, on 1.4.2002 P.W.I lodged F.I.R. Exh. 19 against Raosaheb, Popat, Sanjay, Sandip and Madhukar for kidnapping his son Ravindra to kill. Pursuant to the said F.I.R. P.W.8 P.S.I. Deepak Chavan registered Crime No. 113 of 2002 dated 1.04.2002 under Section 364, 120-B r/w. 34 of I.P.C. against the accused persons. Accused Popat (A-l) was arrested on the same day i.e. on 1.04.2002, under the arrest panchanama at Exh. 22 and subsequent to his arrest; he volunteered to show the place where the body of the deceased Ravindra was thrown. The said disclosure statement, which was recorded in presence of P.W.2, had led to recovery of a dead body, which was identified by P. W. 1 as that of his son Ravindra, whereupon P.W.8 added Section 302 of I.P.C to the crime. 15. Learned Counsel Shri. Pradhan has drawn our attention to the description of the injuries recorded in the inquest and has submitted that the face was totally crushed and the body was beyond recognition. He therefore claims that the identity of the body is doubtful. Whereas Learned APP has submitted that the identity of the body was never in dispute. She has further argued that the body has been identified by PW-1, the father of the deceased. 16. It is to be noted that PW-1 had deposed that he had identified the body as that of his son, Ravindra. This statement was neither denied nor anything was elucidated in the cross examination of this witness to indicate that the said body was beyond recognition. 16. It is to be noted that PW-1 had deposed that he had identified the body as that of his son, Ravindra. This statement was neither denied nor anything was elucidated in the cross examination of this witness to indicate that the said body was beyond recognition. This witness therefore had no opportunity of explaining the basis on which he had identified the body. 17. In the case of Laxmibai (dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Anr. v. Bhagwantbuva (dead) Thr.L.Rs., & Ors., : AIR 2013 (SC) 1204 : [2013(2) ALL MR 420 (S.C.)] the Apex Court has held that: "31. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without that, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1972, which enable the opposite party to cross examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination in chief, and the scope of this provisions stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter-alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reasons that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him, is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses." It is thus a settled legal proposition that in case the question is not put to the witness in cross-examination who could furnish explanation on a particular issue, the correctness or legality of the said fact/issue could not be raised. In the light of these principles, and having failed to challenge the evidence of P.W.I and disapprove the statement of P.W. 1, challenge to the identity of the corpus is not permissible. 18. Learned Counsel Shri Pradhan has further argued that PW-7 Dr. Rajendra Sharma has admitted that the injuries found on the body of the deceased Ravindra could be caused by a fall from height. He therefore contends that the medical evidence does not prove that the death of Ravindra was homicidal. It is pertinent to note that the evidence on record sufficiently proves that, Ravindra was a resident of Kaldhari and was working at Byculla, Mumbai. He was missing since 20.3.2002. The body of Ravindra was recovered from a valley at Ujaloni consequent to the disclosure statement made by Popat (A-l). The medical evidence amply proves that the face of the deceased was crushed and there were multiple facial fractures. P.W.7 had opined that these injuries could be caused by forceful impact of stone. Apart from a hypothetical question whether the injuries could be caused by a fall, the defence has not seriously disputed the homicidal nature of death. No material of whatsoever nature was elucidated to give rise to the possibility or probability of the deceased having visited the said place at Ujaloni or having had a fall from a height and met either an accidental or suicidal death. Consequently, the homicidal nature of death cannot be doubted or disputed on the basis of a hypothetical answer given by the medical witness. The circumstances under which the body was recovered, the place of recovery, the nature of injuries coupled with other ocular and circumstantial evidence, which shall be discussed hereinafter, leaves no doubt that the death of Ravindra was homicidal. 19. The circumstances under which the body was recovered, the place of recovery, the nature of injuries coupled with other ocular and circumstantial evidence, which shall be discussed hereinafter, leaves no doubt that the death of Ravindra was homicidal. 19. So far as the motive and the charge of conspiracy is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was having illicit relationship with the wife of the accused Raosaheb (A-2) as a result thereof, the aforesaid appellants/accused had hatched a conspiracy to kill Ravindra. Therefore, it is imperative to see whether the prosecution has adduced any reliable evidence to establish the motive as well the charge of conspiracy. 20. In this regard, the evidence of P.W. 1 indicates that he was residing at Kaldhari. Raosaheb Pisal who is also a resident of Village Kaldhari was living at Lower Parel, Mumbai. The wife of Raosaheb used to visit village Kaldhari to look after the agricultural work, P.W. 1 has deposed that his son Ravindra used to visit the house of Raosaheb Pisal, at Kaldhari village. He has further deposed that he had learnt from P.W.3 Bhanudas that the deceased was having illicit relation with wife of Raosaheb Pisal due to which Raosaheb had decided to cause death of Ravindra. 21. P.W.3 Bhanudas is a resident of village Kaldhari. He has deposed that the accused Raosaheb and Madhukar are the sons of his maternal uncle and that both were residing in a room at Lower Parel, Mumbai. He has further deposed that he had come to Mumbai on 14.3.2002 and stayed at the house of his uncle Pralhad. Since there was no sufficient space in the room, he used to sleep in the room of Raosaheb. He has further stated that Ravindra was working at Byculla Vegetable market and that he too was residing in the room of the accused Raosaheb. 22. P.W.3 has further stated that Raosaheb had learnt from his mother that Ravindra was having illicit relation with his wife Manisha. P.W.3 has deposed that Raosaheb had told him that he wanted to take revenge against Ravindra. P.W.3 has further stated that on 19.3.2002 at about 10.00 to 10.30 p.m. when he had gone to the house of Raosaheb to sleep, he had heard Raosaheb and other accused planning to kill Ravindra on Railway line at Dadar. P.W.3 has deposed that Raosaheb had told him that he wanted to take revenge against Ravindra. P.W.3 has further stated that on 19.3.2002 at about 10.00 to 10.30 p.m. when he had gone to the house of Raosaheb to sleep, he had heard Raosaheb and other accused planning to kill Ravindra on Railway line at Dadar. He had further stated that on 20.3.2002 at about 11.15 p.m., while they were in the room of Raosaheb, Madhukar had received a phone call from Raosaheb. He has deposed that Raosaheb had called Madhukar at Dadar. He has stated that he accompanied Madhukar at Dadar Flower market. He has stated that on reaching Dadar, he had told Raosaheb not to beat Ravindra and instead to verify the facts. In the meanwhile, accused Sandeep Kate came and told Raosaheb that Ravindra was not ready to come to Dadar Railway line. P.W.3 had deposed that subsequently accused Popat, Sandip, Ravindra and Sanjay went to Mankhurd by taxi. Raosaheb brought another taxi and requested him to accompany him and Madhukar at Mankhurd. He has stated that he refused to accompany them and at that time the police in civil dress arrested him, accused Raosaheb and Madhukar and took them to the police chowki at Dadar. The police took their personal search and recovered one iron bar and knife from possession of Raosaheb. He stated that the police released him and detained Madhukar and Raosaheb in custody. 23. P.W.3 has deposed that he returned to his native place on 29.3.2002. On 30.3.2002, he was called at Byculla Police Station for enquiry. He has stated in his cross-examination that on the date of his arrest by Dadar Police, he had not disclosed that Raosaheb and other accused had hatched a plan to kill Ravindra. He has further stated that he had gone to the police station at Byculla on 5.4.2002 when his statement was recorded by Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He has denied that the accused had not conspired to kill Ravindra. He has further denied that he was deposing falsely under the pressure of the police. 24. The contention of learned Counsel Mr. Nitin Pradhan that this witness is an accomplice has no merits as the evidence of P.W.3 clearly indicates that he was not a party to the conspiracy but had only over heard the plans of the accused. He has further denied that he was deposing falsely under the pressure of the police. 24. The contention of learned Counsel Mr. Nitin Pradhan that this witness is an accomplice has no merits as the evidence of P.W.3 clearly indicates that he was not a party to the conspiracy but had only over heard the plans of the accused. The mere fact that he had accompanied the accused Madhukar to Dadar would not be a reason to brand him as an accomplice when the evidence on record clearly indicates that he was not in any manner associated with the crime. He had not aided or encouraged the accused but had had tried to persuade Raosaheb not to beat Ravindra but to verify the facts from him. This witness had refused to accompany the accused to Mankhurd and had subsequently disclosed the plans of the accused to P.W.1 Anksuh Pisal. The facts and circumstances, therefore, do not even remotely suggest that the witness was an accomplice. Consequently, there is no embargo to rely upon the testimony of this witness. 25. The evidence of P.W.3 indicates that he was not a stranger but was related to the accused Raosaheb and Madhukar. Hence, it was not anomalous for P.W.3 Raosaheb to confide in him that Ravindra was having illicit relations with his wife and further to share his plans to take revenge against Ravindra. The uncontroverted evidence of P.W.3 also reveals that he used to sleep in the room of Raosaheb at Lower Parel, Mumbai. Hence, his presence in the room of Raosaheb at the time of conspiracy cannot be doubted. The evidence of this witness that he had heard the accused planning to kill Ravindra cannot be disbelieved; more so, when there is absolutely no material to impeach the credibility of the witness or to show that he had any reason to falsely implicate the accused Raosaheb and Madhukar, who are related to him. The prosecution evidence brought on record through P.W.3 amply proves that Raosaheb suspected that Ravindra was having illicit relation with his wife and had decided to take revenge, which led to plotting and planning with the other accused to eliminate Ravindra. Thus, the evidence of this witness not only proves the motive but also proves the conspiracy hatched by the accused to kill Ravindra. 26. Thus, the evidence of this witness not only proves the motive but also proves the conspiracy hatched by the accused to kill Ravindra. 26. The prosecution has examined P.W.4 Kavita Kakde, who is the sole eyewitness to the incident. She has stated that she knows Meena (acquitted accused No. 6). She has deposed that that in the year 2002 she and Meena were working as maidservants in BARC Colony at Mankhurd. She has stated that the house of Meena is close to her house and that she used to sometimes stay in the house of Meena. She has stated that she knows accused Shankar and Sanjay, who were residing with Meena. She has further stated that accused Sandip and Popat used to sometimes visit the house of Meena. 27. P.W.4 Kavita has deposed that on 20.03.2002 she had been to the house of Meena. On the same day during evening hours, the accused No. 1 Popat and accused No. 4 Sandep came to the house of Meena alongwith one boy. Meena had told her that the said boy was Ravindra and was a friend of Sanjay. They spent the night in the house of Meena and in the morning, Meena went to work, while accused No. 1 Popat and others left the house and returned at about 3.00 p.m. P.W.4 Kavita has further stated that she had cooked the meat brought by Popat and had meal in the house of Meena. P.W.4 Kavita has stated that later in the day, Meena had requested her to accompany her to Poona to attend marriage ceremony of Sanjay. 28. P. W.4 Kavita has deposed that she alongwith Meena, Shankar, Sanjay, Sandip, Popat and Ravindra left the house at about 5.00 p.m. to go to Poona. They first went to S.T. Stand, Mankhurd and took a S.T. Bus to go to Panvel. They got down at Panvel and went to Khopoli bus stand by autorickshaw. She has deposed that she and Meena waited at the bus stop while the accused Popat, Sandip, Sanjay, Madhukar and Ravindra went to Khopoli market to drink liquor. The accused and Ravindra returned after about 15-20 minutes and they took a bus to go to village Palan. They reached village Palan at about 10.00 to 10.30 p.m. They got down at Palan and walked towards a hilly area. 29. The accused and Ravindra returned after about 15-20 minutes and they took a bus to go to village Palan. They reached village Palan at about 10.00 to 10.30 p.m. They got down at Palan and walked towards a hilly area. 29. P.W.3 has stated that Ravindra was under the influence of Alcohol and was unable to walk. Accused Sanjay and Sandip had assisted Ravindra to walk. She has stated that Ravindra had asked for water, but the accused Sanjay told Ravindra that he did not have water and asked him to drink liquor. Ravindra sat down for a while. He refused to drink liquor and pushed away the liquor bottle. Ravindra told accused that he knew the reason why they had brought him there. He further told the accused that he was aware that they had brought him there to beat him. P.W.3 has stated that she had asked Meena as to why Ravindra was talking in such a way and that Meena had told her to keep quiet. P.W.3 has stated that Ravindra started abusing them, at which time Popat lifted a stone and hit the stone on the left occipital region. Said Popat once again lifted the stone and hit on the occipital region, due to which Ravindra sustained bleeding head injury and was unable to speak. P.W.3 stated that thereafter accused Popat, Sandip and Sanjay lifted Ravindra and carried him towards a hilly area and returned back within five minutes. Thereafter she along with Meena, Popat, Sandip and Sanjay walked towards the road. 30. P.W.4 has deposed that at about 1.30 to 2.00 a.m. while they were walking by the roadside, one person from the nearby village asked them as to why they were standing there at such late hours. Meena told him that they were going to Pali Ganpati but had to get down because of the quarrel with the driver. The said person told them that they would not get any vehicle at such odd hours and took them to the house of one rickshaw driver and requested the said driver to take them to Khopoli. P.W.4 has stated that said rickshaw driver dropped them at Khopoli. Thereafter, they took a bus and proceeded to Mankhurd. 31. P.W.4 has stated that Sanjay had told her not to disclose the incident to anyone and had threatened to kill her in the same manner. P.W.4 has stated that said rickshaw driver dropped them at Khopoli. Thereafter, they took a bus and proceeded to Mankhurd. 31. P.W.4 has stated that Sanjay had told her not to disclose the incident to anyone and had threatened to kill her in the same manner. P.W.4 has stated that thereafter all of them went to the house of Meena and on the next morning, she returned to her house. P.W.4 has stated that on 14.4.2002 she was called to Byculia Police Station and that the police had enquired with her about the incident. She has stated that she had not disclosed the incident to anyone due to fear. She has stated that she was called to Mazgaon Court on 16.4.2002 and that her statement was recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate. 32. In her cross examination she has stated that the police had sent the message about 7-8 days prior to 14.4.2002 and had asked her to come to the police station. She has stated that the house of Meena is at about five minutes walking distance from her house. She has further stated that the relations between her family and the family of Meena were cordial and that her parents had never objected to her staying with Meena. She has stated that she had not sought permission of her parents to accompany Meena to attend the marriage at Pune. She has stated that after her return, she had told her parents that she had gone to attend the marriage of Sandesh. She has stated that they had arrived at Khopoli from Mankhurd at about 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. She has stated that after they got down at Palan, they had walked for about half an hour to reach the hilly terrain. She has stated that she had not seen the dead body of Ravindra after the incident. She has further stated that she has not shown the place of the incident to the police and that the police had not taken her to the spot. She has stated that the police had not shown her the stone by which Ravindra was assaulted. 33. Learned Counsel Mr. She has further stated that she has not shown the place of the incident to the police and that the police had not taken her to the spot. She has stated that the police had not shown her the stone by which Ravindra was assaulted. 33. Learned Counsel Mr. Nitin Pradhan has argued that the evidence of this witness is unnatural and suffers from inherent incredibility on the premise that the if accused had allegedly planned to kill Ravindra, they would take precaution to commit the said crime in secrecy and would not secure presence of any witness. He, therefore, claims that the presence of P.W.4 at the place of the incident is doubtful. He has further argued that though P.W.4 has stated that she is a eye witness, she has not narrated the incident to anyone. Her statement was recorded after considerable time and all these facts cast doubt on her presence at the place of incident. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel Mr. Nitin Pradhan has placed reliance on following decisions (1) Vemireddy Satyanarayan Reddy & Ors. v. State of Hyderabad : 1956 SC 379, (2) Vadivelu Thevur v. State of Madras,: AIR 1957 SC 614 : [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 370], (3) Anil Phukan v. State of Assam,: (1993) 3 SCC 282 , (4) Jagdish Prasad & Ors. v. State of M.P. 1994 Cr.L.J. 1106 : [2014 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 124], (5) Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand,: (2003) 2 SCC 401 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 590 (S.C.)], (6) Joseph v. State of Kerala: (2003) 1 SCC 465 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2110 (S.C.)], (7) Govind Raju v. State: (2012) 4 SCC 722 : [2012 ALL MR (Cri) 1385 (S.C.)], (8) Tanaji Shamrao Nalavade & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra: 2011(3) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 506: [2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2604], (9) Arvind Anand Bandal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra: 2012 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 532 : [2011 ALL MR (Cri) 1424]. 34. The learned APP has argued that P. W.4 is an independent eye witness. She has argued that the testimony of this witness is reliable and corroborated in all material aspects by other witnesses and circumstantial evidence. 35. The legal position that the testimony of a solitary witness can be made on the basis of conclusion is well settled. 34. The learned APP has argued that P. W.4 is an independent eye witness. She has argued that the testimony of this witness is reliable and corroborated in all material aspects by other witnesses and circumstantial evidence. 35. The legal position that the testimony of a solitary witness can be made on the basis of conclusion is well settled. In the case of Vadivelu Thevur v. State of Madras: AIR 1957 SC 614 : [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 370] the Apex Court has held that law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given crime. The Apex Court held that the testimony of a single witness can be relied upon if it is entirely reliable. The Apex Court held that it is well-established law that it is the quality and not the quantity of the evidence that is necessary for proving of a fact. The Apex Court classified the oral testimony into three categories, namely (1) wholly reliable, (2) Wholly unreliable, and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. It was held that in the first two categories there would be no difficulty in either accepting or discarding the testimony of a single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category where the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of a single witness. 36. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the Case of Vadivelu Thevur v. State of Madras, [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 3701 (Supra) have been followed in the case of Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand,: 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 590 (S.C.)] (Supra). In the case of Joseph v. State of Kerala,: 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2110 (S.C.)] (Supra), the Apex Court has held that:-- "......when there is a sole witness to the incident, his evidence has to be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of the evidence tendered by other witnesses or evidence as recorded." 37. On the same lines, the Apex Court in the case of Govind Raju v. State, [2012 ALL MR (Cri) 1385 (S.C.)] (supra) has held that: "29. The evidence of a sole witness should be cogent, reliable and must essentially fit into the chain of events that have been stated by the prosecution. On the same lines, the Apex Court in the case of Govind Raju v. State, [2012 ALL MR (Cri) 1385 (S.C.)] (supra) has held that: "29. The evidence of a sole witness should be cogent, reliable and must essentially fit into the chain of events that have been stated by the prosecution. When the prosecution relied upon the testimony of a sole eyewitness, then such evidence has to be wholly reliable and trustworthy. Presence of such witness at the occurrence should not be doubtful. If the evidence of the sole witness is in conflict with the other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as a foundation of the conviction of the accused. These are the few principles which the court has stated consistently and with certainty." 38. In the light of the well-settled principles laid down, the question that falls for determination is whether the testimony of P.W.4 is cogent, reliable, and trustworthy. The evidence of P.W.4 was a young girl of about fourteen years, reveals that Meena was her neighbor and a close friend. They were working together and P. W.4 was sometimes staying in the house of Meena. P.W.4 knew the accused Popat, Sanjay and Sandeep as they used to visit Meena. Her testimony indicates that Meena had requested her to accompany her to Poona for the marriage of accused Sanjay. In such circumstances, the conduct of P.W.4 in accompanying Meena cannot be said to be unnatural. This young girl had accompanied the accused and Meena without the knowledge of her parents. She had witnessed a ghastly act of murder. She has explained that she was threatened by the accused not to disclose the incident to any one and that she was scared. Under the circumstances, delay in reporting the incident either to her parents or to the police is of little consequence. 39. It is also pertinent to note that P.W.4 has given a detail narration of the events from the time the accused had come to the house of Meena until the time they returned home after the alleged incident. She was neither in inimical terms with the accused nor was she favourably deposed towards the victim and his family. She had no reason to concoct a false story and rope in not only the accused, but also her friend Meena in a serious case of murder. She was neither in inimical terms with the accused nor was she favourably deposed towards the victim and his family. She had no reason to concoct a false story and rope in not only the accused, but also her friend Meena in a serious case of murder. Her testimony does not suffer from any embellishment, improvements, variations, or exaggerations. Though she was cross-examined at length, no contradictions or omissions have been brought on record to impeach her credibility. In the absence of any such discrepancy the testimony of P.W.4 cannot be brushed aside as unreliable and her presence at the place of the incident cannot be held to be doubtful on a broad proposition of human conduct. We are of the considered view that the testimony of this witness is cogent, credible, and reliable and deserves acceptance. 40. The evidence of P.W.4 that the accused were present at Mankurd on 20.03.2002 is consistent with the evidence of P.W.3. Her evidence further indicates that after the incident they had walked for some distance and thereafter had hired a rickshaw to come to Khapoli bus stand. This statement is corroborated by P. W.5 Rajendra Lakimale, the rickshaw driver, whose rickshaw was hired by the accused to go to Khopoli bus stand. The testimony of this witness clearly indicates that on 21.03.2002 at about 1.30 to 1.45 a.m, six persons including two ladies were brought to his house by one of the villagers with a request to drop them to the bus stop. He has deposed that he had dropped the said six persons including the two ladies to Khopoli bus stop. This witness had identified accused Sandip, Sanjay, Popat and accused Meena in the identification parade held by P.W.6 Bhikaji Mungekar. 41. The evidence of P.W.6 Bhikaji Mungekar, the Special Executive Magistrate, proves that he had conducted the ID parade at the request of Byculla Police Station. He has deposed that the witness P.W.5 Rajendra Lakimale had identified the accused Popat, Sandeep, Sanjay and Meena as the same persons who had approached him with a request to drop them at Khopoli Bus stand. He has given detail narration of the procedure followed by him. He had taken precautions to ensure that that the witnesses were kept separately and could not see the suspects. He has given detail narration of the procedure followed by him. He had taken precautions to ensure that that the witnesses were kept separately and could not see the suspects. A perusal of the testimony of this witness leaves no doubt that he had followed the proper procedure and that P. W.5 had identified Popat, Sanjay, Sandeep and Meena amongst the dummy witnesses who were made to stand in the respective parades held by him. The evidence of P.W.5 therefore fortifies the testimony of P.W.4 that the accused Popat, Sanjay, Sandeep and Meena were present in the same locality on the date and time as specified by P.W.4. 42. Another formidable incriminating circumstance against the accused is that while the accused Popat was in custody he had made a disclosure statement, which had led to the recovery of the dead body of Ravindra. The Apex Court in the case of Madhu v. State of Kerala: (2012) 2 SCC 399 : [2012 ALL SCR 528] has held as under: "....49. As an exception, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that a confessional statement made to the police officer or while an accused is in police custody, can be proved against him, if the same leads to the discovery of an unknown fact. The rationale of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act is, that police may procure a confession by coercion or threat. The exception postulated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional statement leads to the discovery of some new fact. The relevance under the exception postulated by Section 27 aforesaid, is limited ".... as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered...". The rationale behind Section 27 of the Evidence Act is, that the facts in question would have remained unknown but for the disclosure of the same by the accused. The discovery of fact itself, therefore substantiates the truth of the confessional statement. And since it is truth that a court must endeavour to search, Section 27 aforesaid has been incorporated as an exception to the mandate contained in Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act." 43. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, reported in 2000(1) SCC P-47: [2000 ALL MR (Cri) 554 (S.C.)] the Apex Court has held that :-- "26. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, reported in 2000(1) SCC P-47: [2000 ALL MR (Cri) 554 (S.C.)] the Apex Court has held that :-- "26. We too countenance three possibilities when an accused points out the place where a dead body or an incriminating material was concealed without stating that it was concealed by himself. One is that he himself would have concealed it. Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it. And the third is that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there. But if the accused declines to tell the criminal court that his knowledge about the concealment was on account of one of the last two possibilities the criminal court can presume that it was concealed by the accused himself. This is because the accused is the only person who can offer the explanation as to how else he came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the court as to how else he came to know of it, the presumption is a well-justified course to be adopted by the criminal court that the concealment was made by himself. Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the principle embodied in Section 27 of the Evidence Act." 44. In the instant case, the deceased Ravindra was a resident of village Khapoli and was working at Byculla, Mumbai. He was missing from Mumbai since 20.03.2002. The body of Ravindra was recovered from a Valley in village Ujaloni pursuant to the information given by the accused Popat. There is no material on record to indicate that the body was recovered from an open space, which was not only accessible but was visible to the public. Similarly, there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that location of the body was already known to the prosecution witnesses or the investigating agency. The accused has not offered any explanation as to how he came to know that the body of Ravindra was lying in the valley Absence of explanation gives rise to the presumption that the accused Popat had himself thrown the body of the deceased in the said valley. Therefore, the discovery of the said fact, which is admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, is also one of the incriminating circumstances, which corroborates the evidence of the eye witness. Therefore, the discovery of the said fact, which is admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, is also one of the incriminating circumstances, which corroborates the evidence of the eye witness. 45. The medical evidence proves that Ravindra had suffered multiple facial fractures. His evidence indicates that the said injuries were ante mortem and fatal and could be caused by a stone. The medical evidence therefore corroborates the ocular evidence of P.W.4. 46. Learned Counsel Shri Pradhan has argued that the prosecution had not shown the stone to the doctor and as such not made any attempts to prove that the injury found on the deceased could be caused by the said stone. He has further argued that the prosecution has not placed on record the C.A. Report and in the absence of such evidence it cannot be presumed that the death of Ravindra was caused by the stone. (Article 5). He has relied upon the decision in the case of (1) Kartarey & Ors. v. The State of U.P.: (1976) 1 SCC 172 , (2) Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P.: (1976) 4SCC 355, and (3) Gurmej Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab 1991 SCC 75 . 47. In the case of Kartarey (supra) the Apex Court had emphasized the importance of eliciting the opinion of medical witness who had examined the injuries of the victim. It was held that: "It is the duty of the prosecution, and no less of the Court, to see that the alleged weapon of the offence, if available, is shown to the medical witness and his opinion is invited as to whether all or any of the injuries on the victim can be caused with that weapon. Failure to do so may, sometimes, cause aberration in the course of justice." These principles have been reiterated in the case of Ishwar Singh and Gurmej Singh (supra). 48. It is true that in the instant case the prosecution as well as the court had not shown the stone (Article 5) to the medical witness and had not invited his opinion as to whether the injuries sustained by Ravindra could be caused by the said stone. 48. It is true that in the instant case the prosecution as well as the court had not shown the stone (Article 5) to the medical witness and had not invited his opinion as to whether the injuries sustained by Ravindra could be caused by the said stone. It is also true that the prosecution has not placed on record the C.A. Report and as such there is no evidence on record to prove that the stone was stained with human blood and that the same was used as a weapon of offence. In our considered view showing the weapon to the medical witness and getting the stone examined and analyzed by the chemical analyzer would have only strengthened the case of the prosecution, but it does not in any manner cause any aberration to the prosecution case. Any deficiencies in the investigation or lapse on the part of the prosecution does not necessarily render the prosecution case unworthy of credit. 49. In the case of Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors.: (1998) 4 SCC 517 , the Apex Court, while dealing with the effect of shoddy investigation, has held that if primacy was given to negligent investigation or to the omissions and lapses committed in the course of investigation, it will shake the confidence of the people not only in the law enforcing agency but on the administration of justice. Similarly, in case of Surendra Paswan v. State of Jharkhand: (2003) 12 SCC 360 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 529 (S.C.), the Apex Court has held that not sending blood sample for chemical examination may constitute a deficiency in the investigation, but the same does not corrode the evidentiary value of the eye witness. 50. In the case of Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh & ors.: (2003) 2 SCC 518 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 798 (S.C.)] the Apex Court has held that in a case where the investigation is found to be defective, the court has to be more circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right to completely throw out the prosecution case on account of such defects, for doing so would amount to playing in the hands of the investigating Officer who may have kept the investigation designedly defective. 51. But it would not be right to completely throw out the prosecution case on account of such defects, for doing so would amount to playing in the hands of the investigating Officer who may have kept the investigation designedly defective. 51. In the light of the above, the failure on the part of the Investigating Officer or the prosecution to show the stone (Article 5) to the medical officer and further to place on record the report of Chemical Examination would not be sufficient to discredit the prosecution case, which is otherwise proved by direct evidence of P.W.4. and other circumstantial evidence discussed above. Hence, we do not find any merits in the submissions of learned Counsel Shri Pradhan. Thus, upon careful consideration of the evidence of the prosecution, in our considered view the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We do not find any illegality or infirmity which warrants interference with the conviction as well as sentence imposed by the trial court. In the result, the appeals have no merit and are hereby dismissed.